TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate forum. In the instant case, there is no apparent mistake in the order of the ITAT dated 30.08.2013, warranting our interference u/s 254(2) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal - MP No. 1-2 /Coch/2015 (Arising out of ITA No.352, 353/Coch/2013) - - - Dated:- 19-1-2018 - Shri Chandra Pooraji, AM And Shri George George K, JM Appellant by : Sri. T.M.Sreedharan Respondent by : Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR ORDER Per George George K., JM These two Miscellaneous Applications at the instance of the assessee arise out of the consolidated order of the Tribunal dated 30.08.2013 in ITA Nos.352 353/Coch/ 2013. The relevant assessment years are 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. 2. Brief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The grievance of the assessee, which is raised in the above two M.Ps. is as regards the observation that the deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) has to be assessed only in the hands of the respective partners and not in the hands of the firm. According to the assessee, the above finding, as regards the assessability of deemed dividend in the hands of the partners, was made without examining the facts of the case in relation to the partners of the firm. Section 2(22)(e) can be invoked only upon fulfillment of conditions and subject to various statutory requirements. Adverse observations against the partners were made without hearing them and without affording reasonable opportunity. Applicability of section 2(22)(e) is to be founded on facts and e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The details of the case laws relied on by the learned AR are as follow:- (i) Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [(1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC)] (ii) CIT v. Manik Sons [(1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC)] (iii) Pathikonda Balasubba Setty (Deceased) v. CIT [(1967) 65 ITR 252 (Bom.)] (iv) J.K.Bankers v. CIT [(1974) 94 ITR 107 (All.)] (v) Apex Bank Ltd. v. CIT [(1978) 112 ITR 257 (Gau.)] (vi) Natwarlal Co. v. CIT [(1963) 50 ITR 783 (Guj.) (vii) Marubeni India (P) Ltd. v. CIT [(2010) 328 ITR 306 (Del.). 3.2 The learned Departmental Representative was duly heard. 4. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. The only issue raised is whether the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction while holdin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its finding only on the subject matter of litigation before it. The finding of the Tribunal is confined to the deletion of addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the I.T.Act in the hands of the assessee-firm. The Tribunal held that beneficial shareholders of the lender company are the partners of firm and not assessee firm and therefore no deemed dividend can be assessed in the hands of the assessee-firm. The case laws relied on by the learned Counsel, are distinguishable on facts. All the case laws mentioned above are explaining the powers of the Tribunal and interpretation of the word thereon u/s 254(1) of the Income-tax Act. None of the judicial pronouncements mentioned above arise out of an order passed by the ITAT u/.s 254(2) of the I.T.Act. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
